State ex rel. The Toledo Blade Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

THE STATE EX REL. THE TOLEDO BLADE COMPANY v. BOARD OF HANCOCK COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS.
[Cite as State ex rel. The Toledo Blade Co. v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
(1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Public records -- Mandamus compelling Hancock County Board of
Commissioners to provide relator access to all records relating to the terms
of a settlement agreement containing a confidentiality provision in a civil
rights violation lawsuit -- Writ denied for mootness when relator has been
given a copy of the settlement agreement -- Attorney fees granted, when.
(No. 97-1013 -- Submitted March 24, 1998 -- Decided May 20, 1998.)
IN MANDAMUS.

In April 1995, Clifton E. Baxter filed a complaint in federal district court
alleging that Hancock County and other parties had committed civil rights and
additional violations against him. Baxter requested a judgment in excess of four
million dollars and an order that the county implement training and supervision of
sheriff's deputies and officers in the areas of lawful arrest, search and seizure, and
interrogation.

In May 1997, respondent, Hancock County Board of County
Commissioners ("board"), adopted a resolution that approved an agreement
settling Baxter's suit. The board's resolution noted that the settlement agreement
and its incorporated confidentiality provision resulted from negotiations among all
of the parties to the federal case. The resolution referred to but did not describe
the terms of the settlement agreement.

According to relator, The Toledo Blade Company, a division of Blade
Communications, Inc. ("The Blade"), one of its employees subsequently requested
to inspect all documents in the board's custody or control that related to the

settlement terms. The board refused The Blade's request because the agreement
was in the possession of the private attorney who represented the county's insurer,
and the agreement contained a confidentiality provision.

The Blade then filed this action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board
to provide access to all records relating to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The Blade also requested attorney fees. After the board filed an answer, which
asserted that The Blade had never specifically requested the settlement agreement,
we granted an alternative writ. 79 Ohio St.3d 1486, 683 N.E.2d 789. In October
1997, we issued our decision in State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Hancock
Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 134, 684 N.E.2d 1222, granting a
peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the board to provide access to the
settlement agreement under Ohio's Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, and
awarding attorney fees to the Findlay Publishing Company.1 The board then gave
a copy of the settlement agreement to The Blade.

The cause is now before this court upon the evidence submitted by the
parties and The Blade's merit brief. The board did not file a brief.
__________________

Fritz Byers, for relator.

Robert A. Fry, Hancock County Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent.

Baker & Hostetler LLP, David L. Marburger and Beth A. Brandon, urging
issuance of the writ for amicus curiae, Ohio Coalition for Open Government.
__________________

Per Curiam.
R.C. 149.43; Mandamus

The Blade initially requested a writ of mandamus to compel the board to
provide access to the settlement agreement. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy

2

to compel compliance with R.C. 149.43. State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994),
70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426-427, 639 N.E.2d 83, 89.

As The Blade concedes, its mandamus claim is moot because the board has
now given it a copy of the settlement agreement. State ex rel. Thomson v.
Doneghy (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 222, 685 N.E.2d 537. Therefore, we deny the writ
of mandamus based on mootness.
Request for Attorney Fees

The Blade requests attorney fees. "A court may award attorney fees
pursuant to R.C. 149.43 where (1) a person makes a proper request for public
records pursuant to R.C. 149.43, (2) the custodian of the public records fails to
comply with the person's request, (3) the requesting person files a mandamus
action pursuant to R.C. 149.43 to obtain copies of the records, and (4) the person
receives the requested public records only after the mandamus action is filed,
thereby rendering the claim for a writ of mandamus moot." State ex rel.
Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049, syllabus.

The Blade satisfied the third and fourth Pennington requirements. It
received access to the settlement agreement only after it filed this mandamus
action.

Further, the Blade has established the remaining Pennington requirements.
Although the board presented evidence disputing the propriety of The Blade's
request and the board's failure to comply with that request, even the board's
clerk's affidavit states that The Blade requested "paperwork" on the settled case,
which is broad enough to include the settlement agreement. See State ex rel.
Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. Shirey (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 400, 401, 678
N.E.2d 557, 559 ("R.C. 149.43 is to be construed liberally in favor of broad
access, and any doubt is to be resolved in favor of disclosure of public records.").

3

According to The Blade, it specifically requested to inspect all records relating to
the settlement terms. The board also failed to file a merit brief disputing the
propriety of an award of attorney fees. See S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11) ("If the respondent
fails to file a merit brief within the time provided by this rule or as ordered by the
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may accept the relator's statement of facts and
issues as correct * * *."). The settlement agreement is a public record,
notwithstanding any confidentiality provision or possession of it by the attorney
for the board's insurer. Findlay Publishing Co.

Under our unanimous holding in Findlay Publishing Co., 80 Ohio St.3d at
139, 684 N.E.2d at 1226, The Blade is thus entitled to an award of attorney fees
because it "has established a sufficient public benefit [by the provision of access to
the requested settlement agreement], and the board failed to comply with its
records request for reasons that were unreasonable and unjustifiable."

Based on the foregoing, we award attorney fees to The Blade, and order its
counsel to submit a bill and documentation in support of attorney fees in
accordance with DR 2-106(B).
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment only.
FOOTNOTE
1.
While The Blade and Findlay Publishing Company requested access to the
same settlement agreement, the board claimed in its answer here that The Blade,
unlike Findlay Publishing Company, did not specifically request access to the
settlement agreement. Given this unresolved factual issue, we granted an
alternative writ rather than a peremptory writ.

4